In today's moot court case, both legal sides argued about the consolidated case (4 cases being tried as one, known as Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. The pro segregation side argued in favor of the side of the board of education of Topeka, Kansas. The three pronged attack of the pro segregation side started off with a very good summarization of plessy’s statements in plessy vs. fergusen. They then went to use of common facts about black tensions and feeling inferior as a common sense type approach about integration of schools. A memorable quote from this piece was, “will integration actually help, or will it just be detrimental to both learning environments. Both parties will be put at a disadvantage”. This side stated that segregation is okay because the african american kids are not being denied an equal education, but are learning the same exact things but in a different setting than white children. It is a local and state issue, even a city or town issue, not a national affair. 
The Anti-segregation side, in favor of Brown (4 total sides arguing against the Board of Ed.) used their knowledge of the topic, and research they found out to start their attack with the idea that african american schools have lower funding compared to the white schools, therefore the idea that white children are mentally inferior to whites is false. They are not mentally inferior, or less intelligent then whites, it's just that they get less funding to have the same opportunities that white children have. Black children are born natural citizens, the same as white children, meaning that they should too have the same exact rights and privileges and learning opportunities that all white children have racial segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment, and affects blacks psychologically causing them to feel inferior because of segregation and causing the children to feel less than white children.
I think that today's court case was probably the most evenly matched case we have had all semester. There was no real 'winner' in my opinion, because both sides took the opposing argument, and used their stance on the matter to debate and come up with rational and strategic arguments in favor of their stance on the trial. I think that through the course of the semester, each trial has grown by leaps and bounds, which shows that we truly are learning the material, how to act in a court scenario, and how to research and manipulate the information they are confronted with in order to help their side succeed.
Here is a link to a overview, or summary of the historical background in the case
No comments:
Post a Comment